Arthur V. Chadwick (
Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:29:16 -0700

At 09:16 PM 4/6/99 -0700, Pim wrote:

>Young earth creationism stands no chance due to it's inability to deal
with the facts of science. That in this case it does not affect YEC is
merely coincidental. But the reason why creationism opposes the story is
because it serves the false purpose of 'guilt by association'. To
paraphrase your own words: "If the best example of evolution is shown to be
wrong then what does this say about evolution". False premise, false
conclusion but even worse a motive.

How can you presume to judge the motives of someone you do not know, on the
basis of something he did not say??? Jonathan specifically removed the
issue from the domain of origins, and brought it into the domain of
science. You should do the same.

>I doubt that given your responses, your unsupported accusations. After all
actions speak louder than words would you not agree. If integrity of
science were on your mind you would stand up against young earth creationism.

You have a one track mind. you are changing the venue here, not Jonathan.

>Jonathan: I have encountered such theoretical commitments before, even
in areas which have no bearing on Darwinian evolution. In the present
case, though, I have been surprised by the
>intense hostility which has been directed at me for criticizing the
classical story.
>It's not the criticism that matters but the manner. Unfounded accusations,
a less than thorough understanding of the literature.

Speaking of unfounded accusations, your accusation is not backed by a
single word of contradictory evidence, and not a single citation from the

>The heated reactions could also be a reflection on the poor scholarship of
your response.

How much more scholarship do you want? He cited sources for every
assertion. You have not cited a single paper in your attack on him.

>Jonathan: Another issue is whether students of biology are to be
>presented with the facts, or with staged photographs which misrepresent the
>undisputed facts.
>Undisputed facts ? Misrepresenting ? Perhaps it is your worldview that is
really coloring the world you see ?

Well, that is the meaning of worldview, isn't it? Are you suggesting that
your world view doesn't color what you are seeing? But which of you is
seeing past the world view?
>Jonathan: And another issue is whether Darwinian evolution is
>empirically so shakey that it cannot tolerate a public debate over the
>adequacy of its evidence.
>Oh it can and it has. But the real issue is not the debate but the
accusations made.

You have made this the issue, but it is pointedly not the issue that
Jonathan presented. In your enthusiasm to sequester what you refer to as
"YECs" (who brought that up?), you have run roughshod over the issues
Jonathan has presented. I would be so bold to suggest that you may not
have even heard what he has been saying.